Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

> On 10 Sep 2021, at 17:21, Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> writes:
>
> > The addresses aren’t the major cost of providing IPv4 services.
> >
> > CGN boxes, support calls, increasing size of routing table = buying new routers, etc.
>
> You're counting dual-stack costs as if IPv4 was the optional protocol.
> That's a fantasy world.  Time to get out of la-la land now.
>
> Your edge routers can do CGN for all connected users just fine. Yes,
> there is still a cost both in resources and management, but you'll have
> to weigh that against the cost of doing dual-stack on the same box.  I'm
> not convinced dual-stack wins.
>
> Don't know what you're thinking of wrt support calls, but dual-stack has
> some failure modes which are difficult to understand for both end users
> and support.  NAT is pretty well understood in comparison.
>
> Your routing tables won't grow with IPv4 or CGN.  They grow when you add
> IPv6.
>
> > Increased cost of developers having to work around NAT and NAT
> > becoming ever more complex with multiple layers, etc.
>
> And this can be avoided by reconfiguring the local network somehow?  Or
> are we talking about an Internet without IPv4?  This is even more
> fantastic than the idea that IPv4 is optional in the local network.
>
> > All of these are the things driving the ever increasing cost of IPv4
> > services, not just the cost of the addresses.
>
> Yes, the cost of addresses is not prohibitive, and there is no
> indication it will be.
>
> The consolidation of hosting services have reduced the need for globally
> routable addresses.  You don't host your own mail server and web server
> anymore, even if you're a large organisation.  Most ISPs haven't yet
> taken advantage of this.  They are still giving globally routable IPv4
> addresses to customers which have no need for that.  These addresses can
> be re-allocated for CGN if there is a need. This is obviously still not
> free, but it does limit the price of fresh IPv4 addresses.
>
> The other costs you list will not affect an IPv4 only shop at all.
>
>
> Bjørn

Or you could deliver IPv6-only to your customers and used to CGN boxes
to deliver IPv4AAS using less than 1/2 the IPv4 address space you need
for a NAT444 solution as +60% of your traffic doesn’t need CGN processing.

464XLAT example

{ Internet IPv4(40% of traffic) + IPv6(60% of traffic) } - [Router w/ NAT64] - { IPv6-only (IPv4 traffic has been 
translated to IPv6) } - [CPE w/ CLAT] { home network IPv4 + IPv6 }

DS-Lite

{ Internet IPv4(40% of traffic) + IPv6(60% of traffic) } - [Router w/ AFTR] - { IPv6-only (IPv4 traffic has been 
encapsulated in IPv6) } - [CPE w/ B4] { home network IPv4 + IPv6 }

MAP-T and MAP-E are similar to 464XLAT and DS-Lite respectively.

Yes, you have to learn something new but it costs less that a “pure" IPv4
service.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org